چکیده:
This study aims at empirically furthering awareness of the organization of interaction in EFL classes. Informed by the methodological framework of conversation analysis, it draws upon a corpus of 52 three-hour naturally-occurring classroom interaction to identify classroom interactional contexts based on the structuring of the pedagogic goals in turn-taking sequences. Conversation analytic procedures were then paired with quantitative procedures to explore the distribution of the identified contexts within the macro-context of classroom discourse and to investigate the effect of interaction-external factors, i.e., teachers‟ training and learners‟ levels of language proficiency, on the distribution of the identified contexts. Analyses of extracts from the transcribed data led to the emergence of four interactional contexts: form-oriented, meaning-oriented, skill-oriented, and management-oriented. As to their distribution, form-oriented and skill-oriented contexts were found to be constitutive of the bulk of interaction, with meaning-oriented context comprising the smallest proportion. A two-way multivariate analysis of variance revealed that the distribution of all identified contexts was significantly affected by learners‟ levels of language proficiency. Teachers‟ training had a significant main effect on just form-oriented and management-oriented contexts. The findings of this study draw teachers and teacher educators‟ attention to the necessity of a change in the status quo of EFL classroom interaction.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Informed by the methodological framework of conversation analysis, it draws upon a corpus of 52 three-hour naturally- occurring classroom interaction to identify classroom interactional contexts based on the structuring of the pedagogic goals in turn-taking sequences.
As to conversation analysis (CA), however, teachers and learners tend to co-construct (plural) contexts through their talk-in-interaction in relation to the overall and the unfolding pedagogic goals of a lesson (Walsh, 2006).
Within Seedhouse‟s (2004) framework, these studies have dealt with a variety of issues, including turn-taking in form and accuracy context (Waring, 2008), wait-time in meaning and fluency context (Yaqubi & Pourhaji, 2012), understanding-check questions in different contexts (Yaqubi & Karimpour, 2013), turn-allocation patterns in both form (accuracy) and meaning (fluency) contexts (Xie, 2011), interactional feedback in task-oriented context (Yousefi & Biria, 2011),use of L1 in the procedural context (Nation, 2003), to name only a few.
With its root in ethnomethodology which studies methods people use for the production of social order (Garfinkel, 1967), CA focuses on how people use language in conversation as a means for social interaction (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974).
The pedagogic goals and the inherent interactional features of some contexts tend to structure classroom interaction in such a way that it gives the control of the discourse totally to the teacher and leaves little, and at times no, space for the learners to benefit from interactional adjustments, fine-tuned input, and comprehensible output.